 sj |
||
|
||
BS: World War 3
|
|
|
Subject: BS: World War 3 From: Songwronger Date: 02 Jan 12 - 07:51 PM Some people argue that the Cold War was WW3, but for the sake of discussion let's say it wasn't. Do you think we'll have a WW3, and if so, how will it come about and when? My thumbnail prediction--NATO will attack Syria as a way to get to Iran, and that will result in China and possibly Russia taking action against NATO. As far as when this will happen, perhaps sometime in 2012, after the eurodollar is destroyed by the big banks. The American dollar will the next most vulnerable major currency, and a war will be launched to keep it afloat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: gnu Date: 02 Jan 12 - 08:16 PM You could be right but I don't think WW3 will happen for several years. It is an interesting prediction that China and Russia would team up. Seems unlikely but it could happen. I just can't see it. The Ruskies are a little too pissed at their (former) Muslim countries to join up with China and further divide their links with their western allies. I think it will be China with some Asian and other allies (we'll see who in the Arab world signs on) vs West. It's gonna be a nasty time. BTW... my comments are TOTALLY without any base in fact. Just my gut feelings. How? Well, when the west can't pay up. I bought a new truck two years ago for less than I paid for the "same" one I bought 11 years before that. The banks got bailed out. The auto companies got bailed out. The cash is goin somewhere. I figure it's goin into a war chest. History repeats? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Bobert Date: 02 Jan 12 - 08:24 PM We are in the midst of WWIII... The Arab Spring and OWSers are trying to shake off their masters... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: gnu Date: 02 Jan 12 - 08:34 PM Well, Bobert... it ain't WW3 yet. But when the Yankee Spring takes place... DUCK! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: pdq Date: 02 Jan 12 - 08:43 PM "But when the Yankee Spring takes place..." So, they got some better pitching this year? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,999 Date: 02 Jan 12 - 08:57 PM World War Three is a myth, just as was the War to End All War. There is lots of money to be made having our kids kill their kids. But any war involving ABC warfare will herald in the destruction of us as a species. I rather hope we'll kill the people doing that before they can do that and kill the rest of us. It is NOT the purpose of government to send our kids to war unnecessarily. (IMO, yes there are 'just' wars.) It is NOT the business of government to pander for big business. It already does too much of that. I would rather be shot by a JTF 2 sniper than be strangled, twisted and broken-backed by MX, be starved by infected crops that won't grow because they have been grown to death by trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, be blinded then melted by nuclear weapons. I'm aware I will die soon, but some political sonuvabitch who edges us all toward an end of that nature really pisses me off. I have kids and a grand kid. Fu#k with me, that's one thing. Fu#k with them, that's another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Bobert Date: 02 Jan 12 - 09:09 PM Righto, brucie... Ike warned *US* all about the military/industrial complex... Ike was 100% right... Seems that the folks who make money building & selling military hardware love war and spend lots of money on folks who will push war... Iraq??? Can anyone tell me what that was about??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Rapparee Date: 02 Jan 12 - 09:13 PM Ain't gonna happen. Come 2015 or thereabouts, China and India will since a pact that will create the world's biggest industrial bloc -- either that or war and neither will go there because there's too much money to be made. Both of them currently graduate more people in engineering, science, math and technology that any other places in the world. South Korea and Japan will probably also be in on it. Let's say Iran decides to nuke Israel. First of all, Israel is gonna nuke back. Then BOTH countries are gonna get phone calls from the US, the UK, France, China, and Russia that say, "Nice try, now your capital and capitol is toasted." Same thing for No. Korea, Pakistan, etc. WW3 ain't profitable. We'll continue to have these "penny-fights" that kill people piecemeal, but there ain't gonna be no massive nuke strikes like the Cold War feared. That is not to say that some dipshit won't use a nuke -- I expect the US to be nuked by a terrorist action, likewise other countries (UK and India come to mind). But it won't be nation against nation, unless some nation decides to commit suicide. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Rapparee Date: 02 Jan 12 - 09:26 PM Surely Bobert, our government -- Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and the rest -- wouldn't lie to us, would they? By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer November 9 2007: 12:40 PM EST NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- With the war in Iraq now estimated to cost the United States nearly $2 trillion over the next ten years, many taxpayers are probably wondering what happened to all that oil money that was supposed to help pay for the war. In selling the war to voters, Bush administration officials said overthrowing Saddam Hussein would cost as little at $50 billion, and that much of the reconstruction could be paid for with the Iraq's oil revenue. It's true the country has the potential to pump lots of oil. Its estimated 115 billion barrels of reserves in the ground make it the second or third largest holder of crude behind Saudi Arabia or, possibly, Iran. Some experts say the country could pump upwards of 6 million barrels a day, more than anyone but the Saudis and Russians, who each pump between 8 and 10 million barrels of the world's daily 85 million barrel output. But Iraq is currently lucky to pump 2 million barrels a day. Decades of war and neglect have nearly halved production from a high of 3.5 million barrels in the late 1970s. Output is now below where it was when the United States first invaded in 2003, and some experts say that Iraq could see production fall by 200,000 barrels a day per year under present conditions. Proceeds from Iraq's current oil sales - about $30 billion a year in 2006 - go to funding the Iraqi government. In fact, the Iraqi government is nearly entirely dependent upon oil for its funding, with crude accounting for at least 90 percent of its budget. Boosting oil production seems to be in everyone's interest. Iraq would get more money, and the U.S. may have to pony up a little less for reconstruction. Total U.S. spending in the country, on both military and reconstruction, has now topped $368 billion through 2007, according to the Congressional Budget Office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,999 Date: 02 Jan 12 - 09:31 PM "Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and the rest -- wouldn't lie to us, would they?" Heaven forefend! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Rapparee Date: 02 Jan 12 - 09:58 PM I think that if Top People Who Should Know say something won't cost more than $50 million they should be responsible for the difference between the estimate and the actual cost. Either that or shut up about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Jan 12 - 10:10 PM Ain't gonna be no WW III |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Songwronger Date: 02 Jan 12 - 10:11 PM WW3 will happen when the dollar begins to lose significant value. That will come after the eurodollar collapses, which it's already in the process of doing, thanks to financial manipulation. The U.S. dollar will be the next major currency to be targeted, and an oil war will be launched. The price of oil will jump, thus absorbing surplus U.S. dollars flooding the world, stabilizing the dollar. This is what was done to stabilize the dollar in the early 70s. The problem this time is that the strait of Hormuz will need to be shut down in order to get the oil spike, and that will require aggression from somewhere. During that initial exchange, nukes could be set off. Once that's done, all bets are off. I think Hormuz will be shut by the end of the year, and if we're lucky there won't be any nuclear consequence. It's quite true that we're being milked and the people doing the milking don't want to see that end, but they're also inbred and insane, so they don't have a firm grap on the teat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Jan 12 - 10:55 PM Songwronger, Just as I was getting completely sick and tired of your childish pissing and moaning about Obama, you become Chicken Little. Grow up a little will you? Try to be an adult. Stop drinking the hyperbole juice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Jan 12 - 10:57 PM It's always possible that it can happen, but I wouldn't be the one to make predictions. I'll leave that to people like Harold Camping. ;-D If it did happen, I think the likeliest scenario would be a USA/Israeli attack on Iran, followed by other major powers (such as Russia and China) getting drawn into the conflict on the other side. It would be an escalating series of errors, in other words, as is the case with most major wars, and the first of those errors would be the attack on Iran. But that's not a prediction. It's just one of a number of possibilities. Call it scenario number 1. I think it is also possible that a major geological, climatic event that affects the entire planet will happen first and pre-empt the whole damn war thing...in which case our political shenanigans won't mean a thing anymore and our military technology will be gone too. We'll all be too busy just trying to survive. Call that scenario number 2. And it's also possible that neither of the above will happen. That's scenario number 3. If I had my druthers, I'd go for the number 3 scenario. I don't particularly want to see all the acomplishments of the past 5,000 years wiped out in a day. No sir. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,999 Date: 02 Jan 12 - 11:17 PM I was part of a group that took H2S rescue training. H2S is the second most deadly gas we know of--lord only knows what the military has-- hydrogen cyanide being number one. I spoke with three survivors of H2S inhalation. Please allow me to explain. In simple terms: A single partial inhalation of H2S stops the breathing response. Unfortunately, it also disables our ability to do anything about it. So, we lay there and think for a few minutes about how unfair it all is. Then we die. They were saved because someone with SCBA was able to drag them out of the gas area and perform CPR. The best breathing gear to wear are air tanks that continually expel air thus making the accidental intake of the gas less likely for the rescuer. Air on demand tanks (with face masks of course) are second best. (That's one of the reasons rescue personnel have to shave every day. No air seal and you too could be a statistic.) Now, forget about that for a minute. Imagine a gas (miniscule droplets of misty liquid) that can be absorbed through your skin and then deleteriously affect your central nervous system. This is the result of a Sarin gas attack: Iraq, courtesy of S Hussein. Now, imagine a gas deadlier than that, but one that also makes your skin blister, your lungs burn, your eyes and ears bleed because the cells in your body have begun to explode. Imagine your child being hit before you are able to die. And imagine seeing that. Then imagine for just the few seconds you have left that you did nothing to prevent it. Forget god and the devil. You will know hell, up close and personal. That's just part of the C part of ABC warfare. And if that doesn't scare the shit out of you, allow me to introduce you to Frederick "Freddy" Charles Krueger. He was such a nice boy . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Jan 12 - 12:41 AM What is wrong with you people? Nobody on Earth is going to risk the future of their country over Iran much less the comfortable oligarchs in Russia, industrialists of China and bankers here in the west. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,999 Date: 03 Jan 12 - 02:15 AM Well said, Jack. I hope you're right. The thing that bothers me are the groups--all religious--who WANT Armageddon for one or other of reasons that don't make sense to us. Islam has their heaven to look forward to, Christianity has the rapture, and Judaism the biblical prophecy to embrace. As they more and more get into politics, so do they more and more exert pressure on their respective governments to see that that gets done. No sane individual would hope for that, but we be talkin' extremist fundamentalists who do seem to have a tenuous grasp on what most of us call reality. "What is wrong with you people?" So far, just fear. Wasn't it Billy Graham who counselled someone in the White House--or was it a few someones in the White House? Does the name Rasputin ring a bell? You've listened to some of the Republican candidates. Do none of them make you just a bit nervous? As I said, I sure hope you're right. I hope so, really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Jan 12 - 03:16 AM There is nothing in any holy book telling Rick Santorum to attack Iran without clearing it with the UN Security Council. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Jan 12 - 08:54 AM I also hope you're right, Jack. There's nothing "wrong with us people". We're just discussing various possibilities that come to mind. As I said above, major wars have often resulted from a series of diplomatic or military errors that accumulated until things got out of control. This happened in the case of the First World War. It also happened in the case of the Second World War, because Hitler was not expecting the UK and France to go to war over Poland. He thought they were bluffing when they said they'd fight over Poland, because he thought that "no one on Earth is going to risk the future of their country over Poland", to paraphrase what you said a couple of posts back about Iran. He was wrong about that, and he found himself, to his considerable surprise, to be in a major war with two great powers within days of attacking the despised (in his view) Poles, a people whom he didn't think anyone would risk a world war to defend. If the French had had the initiative to act at once and invade western Germany in Sept. '39, Hitler might have found himself in a very bad situation. As it happened, they did not show such initiative. They made angry noises, sat back, and watched. By the spring of 1940, Hitler was ready to fight in the West. Similar misadventures could happen with Iran, because the Chinese and Russians do have very important strategic interests associated with Iran and its oil. As I said, though, I very much hope you are right, and it doesn't happen that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Sandy Mc Lean Date: 03 Jan 12 - 09:06 AM Perhaps the greatest threat to worldwide security is the decline of the USA as a world power. It may still be the strongest nation on Earth but few can deny that it is on the wane. While I have no great respect for many past deeds of that capitalist bastion, it provided some stability, and I fear what may rise to fill the vacuum! If there is another world war I believe that it will be fueled by religious issues rather than nationalistic or economic ones. Mankind seems unable to overthrough dogma that teaches them that God is on their side so they should kill everyone else. I fear a rise in the strenth of fools! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Jan 12 - 09:59 AM Mankind seems unable to overthrough dogma that teaches them that God is on their side so they should kill everyone else. I do not think that stands up. Are there any such conflicts now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Rapparee Date: 03 Jan 12 - 10:17 AM Every war is fought because "God's on our side." You can't kill in war if you don't believe that the other side is on the side of Wrong and Evil. Try "On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society" by Dave Grossman (it's required reading at places like West Point and Sandhurt) -- it'll open your eyes if anything will. Then read his book "On Combat," another eye-popper. In a historical vein, try Paddy Murphy's "Battle Tactics of the Civil War" (he's at Sandhurst). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,EBarnacle Date: 03 Jan 12 - 10:57 AM "There is nothing..." Try reading the Bible starting with Genesis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Musket Date: 03 Jan 12 - 11:23 AM Well, the UK government reckon they are on an austerity measure at present so aren't really in a position to argue our way into another war. As our government and media are usually the ones spoiling for a fight, (Harold Wilson and his wonderful Vietnam stance apart) wars will have to wait for a budget that can withstand it.. Although on a serious note, China needs to feed on the materialist excesses of the Western world, and wars get in the way of selling the hardware for Apple. Russia seems to be telling the jokers in The Kremlin that they are accountable so stop playing silly buggers and India is the superpower that is just pissed off that this thread isn't recognising the fact... Now, Iran and North Korea? I suppose that nobody has the stomach to effect regime change by occupation. So if they do start behaving terminally irresponsibly, their nuclear weaponry may, just may, be an excuse to end their war aims rather quickly, and that's glossing over the horrible deaths of a few million innocent people. Stop talking up a war. Wars are good for kick starting an economy according to some, but to be honest, it is just delaying financial reckoning in the same way as sub prime and over heated economies of the last ten years. So even the economists aren't interested. (We in The UK have only recently paid off The Marshall Plan so be buggered to another loan, by a country who can't afford to give it these days. The dollar is a busted flush, just like the Euro..) Anyway, God can't be on your side because he is on the other bloke's side. Every time, every damned time. You can be a contrary sod when you don't exist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Jan 12 - 11:24 AM I've read it. Which part are you alluding to? **** As Rap says, every combatant nation always thinks that God is on its side. Its leaders say so, so it must be true! ;-D The only exception is officially atheistic regimes such as Stalin's Russia, Mao's China or Pol Pot's Khymer Rouge...whose very credo was to deny any concept of God or religion...but they simply supplanted one outer form of faith with another outer form of faith, one of equal or even greater mental rigidity....their faith being in an "ism"...their version of Communism. Extreme communism is a secular religion, in my opinion. Its prophets are Marx and Engels, its holy books are their writings and the writings of leaders such as Mao, its gods are the supreme leader at any given time, and the political system he represents. You want to talk about an unrealistic and thoroughly ignoble deity...you can't do better than that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Ed T Date: 03 Jan 12 - 11:28 AM There are never a shortage of reasons and hots pots and strife to generate a broad world class war. But, wars often start because, behind the reasons promoted to the public, someone, (often a power nation) wants to profit from it. So, one should look beyond the obvious (the never ending signs of regional strife) for the potential signs of who could/would profit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Jan 12 - 11:38 AM For sure. These days, look to who controls vital sources of petroleum (and natural gas) and vital sources of fresh water. Those are the most likely motivators for fighting a war for both profit and national survival. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: fretless Date: 03 Jan 12 - 01:01 PM Oil and water, absolutely. Among the possible scenarios: (1) Turkey vs. Iraq over control of the Tigris and Euphrates frsh water flow (where Turkish dams already give that country control), expanding into Arab vs. non-Arab intra-Islamic conflict reopening wounds from the Ottoman empire, potentially expanding into a NATO vs. Middle Eastern Arabic Islam war; (2) conflict over the recently discovered Eastern Mediterraenan sub-sea oil shale and natural gas reserves that are controlled or claimed by Cyprus, Israel and Egypt, but with counterclaims by other countries, including Turkey. War scenarios for expandable conflicts there, beyond the obvious one involving Egypt and Israel, include Cyprus vs. Turkey, which has already been accused of encroaching upon Cypriote sub-sea claims. In a straightforward conflict, Cyprus would be no match for Turkey, but with oil at stake, it is easy to picture Greece getting involved on the side of Cyprus, which could then bring the oil-hungry EU into conflict with Islamic Turkey, at which point larger-scale engagements could follow. There are other potential flash points, but for my money, these two are among the most likely to get out of hand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Rapparee Date: 03 Jan 12 - 01:26 PM Well, if you want flashpoints, look at the nations who are all striving to claim the Arctic. The US, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Sweden.... And the Antarctic isn't heard from yet, either. Chile, Australia, NZ.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Jan 12 - 02:03 PM If you go to war over oil and gas. No one gets to use the oil and gas, during the war and for years afterwards. Oil and gas greed could not sustain WWIII. and just how is a spat between Cyprus and Turkey WWIII? With every country in the world capable of long term military effort embracing some form of market economy and with the market being global and interdependent The chances of a large scale global military conflict is next to nil. The chances of Nuclear, chemical or biological weapons being used somewhere, somehow to kill a few tens of thousands of people is much more likely. But say what you will about the UN and the "evil" superpowers, real efforts are being made to prevent that. Sandy, the mechanisms are already in place to fill that "Vacuum" The G20, the UN, NATO even "regional groups" like the Arab League and OAS are all aimed are world and regional peace and prosperity. You say America is in "decline" but the economy is still growing. It is not we who are ebbing. Others are rising. And while we are talking about decline. The dollar is relatively strong, Besides the Yen find a stronger currency. And the Japanese are desperately trying to devalue. There is no run on European banks. The crisis in the Eurozone is purely political. At some point the PIGS will realize that they can't live on other countries borrowed money and with stricter controls in place the EU will emerge stronger than ever and ready to face the future. The World as a whole is much richer and more peaceful than it has ever been. There is much more reason for optimism than pissing and moaning about the end of the world as we know it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Jan 12 - 02:18 PM I agree that there is much reason for optimism...if one looks at the positive side of what we can do and are doing. Let's hope it goes that way. It's true that oil and gas production would be greatly disrupted by a war over oil and gas....so that makes such a war a very stupid idea. That doesn't mean it can't happen. All wars result from stupid ideas, in my opinion...but those who start a war usually do so with the expectation that they can win it quickly...and can limit the collateral damage. They figure the odds are on their side. They often turn out to be wrong about that, and most wars last much longer and cost far more than was anticipated in the heady days of the first offensive. Thus do fools rush to war, just like the North and South did in the American Civil War. They both anticipated a quick victory. They couldn't have been wronger about that. And they also both believed, of course, that God was on their side. One thing they may not have considered is that God may be, in a strictly indvidual sense, on everybody's side...a viewpoint hardly to be embraced by politicians! That is, if there IS a God, that God would, I think, reward honest effort and courage shown on any side of a conflict with worthy results. You get what your efforts merit, both in war and in peace. This is something every good soldier knows in his heart, and that's why they all feel in their gut that God is on their side (unless the very idea of God itself is anathema to their personal philosophy). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Mrrzy Date: 03 Jan 12 - 02:53 PM I figure WWIII started when Arabs started killing Americans all over the world, beginning in November 1979 with the takeover of the Teheran embassy, through all the planes, trains and sniper terrorism overseas of the '90's including those embassies and the first crack at the World Trade center, then 9-11 was its first attack on US soil but look what that sparked, the decade of the 00's with the war of Americans and everybody else ("don't forget Poland!") against the Taliban and anybody else who jumped in to fight on their side or at least against the invaders... What makes that NOT WW III? It involves all the continents pretty much every nation has Americans and Moslems in it.. it's amorphous only in that not all Arabs are the bad guys and not all Americans are innocent victims either, nor has there really been a "legally" "declared" "war" "between" "nations" involved, all terms of jargon here. However, Arabs springing up against their own home-grown oppressors I would not consider a part of that particular conflict. Maybe because I'm in favor of it? But then once the UN comes in with bombs, well, it's a world war but maybe IV rather than III. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Rapparee Date: 03 Jan 12 - 03:16 PM They both anticipated a quick victory. Field Marshall Montgomery, 1944: "Market Garden will be so successful it'll be over by Christmas". ------------- Bill Haine joined up early on [1914]. He remembered the mood in Britain when he did so. "Well, I thought the same as everybody else. Everybody said 'It'll be over by Christmas and you've got to get out soon, otherwise you won't see anything'." ------------- "...Milner precipitated a war with the Boers. As always, over-confident generals and politicians predicted the war would be over 'by Christmas'...." -------------- "[Macarthur] also thought that Allied air power could prevent additional Chinese troops from entering North Korea. Political leaders in Washington and most of the Allied commanders shared MacArthur's confidence that the war would be over by Christmas." ----------- I think that Ug-Mun, leader of the Water People, predicted victory over the Mud People by the Winter Solstice, 10,432 BCE.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: fretless Date: 03 Jan 12 - 03:30 PM "I figure WWIII started when Arabs started killing Americans all over the world, beginning in November 1979 with the takeover of the Teheran embassy" Except Iran isn't an Arab country. Islamic antagonism to the US and the West is deeply entrenched; but intra-Islamic conflict, between Arab and non-Arab countries, and amongst the Arab countries themselves, could be just as incendinary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Jan 12 - 03:41 PM "I figure WWIII started when Arabs started killing Americans all over the world, beginning in November 1979 with the takeover of the Teheran embassy" Use that criteria then "The Cold War" was WWIII with massive casualties in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: goatfell Date: 03 Jan 12 - 03:47 PM the answer is not if but when? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 03 Jan 12 - 04:03 PM Never. bet on America in 2012 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: John P Date: 03 Jan 12 - 04:09 PM One of my favorite bumper stickers from the cold war: If we're going to have songs for World War III, we'd better write them now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Ed T Date: 03 Jan 12 - 04:12 PM China's economic interests are likely now with a stronger USA and Europe, as it benefits China's production machine. The occasional NATO military intervention, likely benefits China's money lending machine. China benefits from poor western relationships with "rogue" nations, as they trade with them, and helps China to develop the rogue nations natural resources (for example, mineral rand oil resources off Cuba. China pretty well gets what it wants now, though may want more land in the future, and is sensitive about some areas (for example, Taiwan and North Korea), but most western countries would likely know that. India and Pakistan is a time bomb in-waiting. But, it is unclear if they waged war if other nations would actively intervene (versus, profit from it). Russia likely has enough internal problems to deal with, and pretty much gets along with the west, these days, anyway. As long as global countries have access to oil, I am sure if the conflicts matter? It's hard to figure out who profits from increased prices, that conflict in oil rich areas cause? IMO, a major military strike against Israel,(possibly by Iran or Syria)would cause significant international turmoil-where it would lead, and who it would involve is anyone's guess? No doubt a lot of rockets would be flying at targets likely already identified. Arms dealers would hit a jackpot.But, while always a source of tension, middle east conflicts do have a way of being sorted out (though rarely resolved) through international deplomacy. Potential changes in Saudi Arabia-that could change relationships trade-may also create big tension. The impact of (and reaction to) a new major attack against the USA (inside the USA) by one of its enemies is a puzzle, especially in todays climate. I agree that though there is plenty of potential fodder, inter-relationships tend to dull some of the potential for a global conflict, as WW1 and WW2 were. IMO, the aftermath of 911 (while significant to some nations) was hardly a conflict of a WW variety. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Jan 12 - 05:41 PM 911 was not an act of war. Acts of war are committed by sovereign nations with armed forces, upon other sovereign nations. 911 was committed by a small, clandestine group of conspirators who hijacked some airplanes (and probably did some other well-organized covert things too, but I won't get into that...). It was a criminal act by a criminal group. Not an act of war. To respond to a criminal act by launching a mechanized war upon another nation is stupid. More than that, it's insane. And it cannot produce a useful result for anyone, except someone who wants the USA to be involved in an endless war with shadowy and unrealizable objectives...a war which has no clear resolution, because it's not based on anything that makes any sense (unless you're intent on building a fascist state in the USA...in which case it's quite helpful). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,999 Date: 03 Jan 12 - 05:45 PM It may be harder to manipulate the cannon fodder this time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Songwronger Date: 03 Jan 12 - 08:30 PM As people have pointed out here, it's true that a world war would not serve any country's interest. But countries no longer run the show. Muliti-national concerns do that. Strong sovereignty (Egypt, Libya) is now visited with destruction so that governments more agreeable to usurious banking control can be installed. And the banks want peace (so they can milk us, to death), but there are too many loons out there. Too many wild cards. Look at the Minot nuclear incident. Humanly impossible for a planeload of nukes to disappear, yet they did, just as Dick Cheney was sabre rattling about Iran. That's not good. And then there's the whole Anglo-German inbred royalty group. They control the world's finances with their City of London banking empire, and what might they do if that begins to go? Minot nuke cover-up |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 03 Jan 12 - 08:45 PM I don't think you guys are with it. It starts with the U.S. refusing the Keystone pipeline, believing the network of dinky lines through the States are sufficient. Canadians are unhappy, wanting the increased income, and in contracts with the Chinese, pipelines are built through British Columbia to a new port built with Chinese money. The Chinese already have investments in the oil sands, forests and minerals which they will fight to protect. The U. S. gets upset about all of the Chinese involvement in Canada, so close to them, and Congress passes a bill to take over Canada to keep the Chinese at bay (the U. S. flubbed their chance in the 1780s and has sulked ever since). China objects to U.S. interference and war-mongering and threatens using force to keep their Canadian interests. American and U.S. naval forces engage in a game of chicken and an American warship is rammed. In retaliation, an attempt is made to blockade Chinese ports. The Chinese send troops to protect their interests in Canada. The U.S. declares war on Canada. Undeclared war breaks out and the city of Vancouver (renamed Shanghai East) is largely destroyed. The Chinese retaliate by bombing Seattle. ............... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Songwronger Date: 03 Jan 12 - 08:51 PM Be a shame about Vancouver. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Rapparee Date: 03 Jan 12 - 10:30 PM Lemme see if I remember the situation as I last knew it. Aggressor force SANT LAURENKO had already captured the St. Lawrence Seaway, nuking Chicago, Detroit, Duluth, Buffalo, Montreal, Toronto, Cleveland, Toledo, Blind River, Saginaw -- had pretty much turned the whole Great Lakes area into radioactive debris. Meanwhile, other groups had parachuted into the Midwest and had taken control of the Mississippi and Missouri River valleys. All major US cities with a population greater than 100,000 had been nuked; all major dams and railroad centers had been destroyed. Aggressor forces, landing on the West Coast, had fought their way inland as far as the Eastern border of Nevada; other forces had attacked up the Rio Grande Valley. That's all I remember about it -- the situation is from the US Army's "Aggressor Manual" of about 1967. By the way, the aggressors spoke Esperanto; their symbol was a triangle inside a circle ("Circle Trigon") and the salute was done with the right fist touching first the forehead, then the chest, and then flung out ("Head and heart for the Fatherland"). I like being an aggressor -- we were winning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,999 Date: 03 Jan 12 - 10:31 PM Be a shame about Seattle, too. They have a good artistic base with many fine musicians. Near enough there are Bob Nelson and Mary Garvey. Mary Garvey is a gem of a songwriter. I don't always understand her when she posts on Mudcat, but that gal can write the most beautiful and poinent/poinant/poingyent touching songs, and sing them well. Bob is both a good folk musician/singer and a person who donated much of his life to a love of the folk genre, thus providing a university with tapes and I think writings that will ensure this 'thing' we call folk music has a life after we have all left it. We are none of us so cold that thoughts of annihilation have an appealing ring. Kinda like lead bells: we don't make them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,999 Date: 04 Jan 12 - 11:03 AM "So, one should look beyond the obvious (the never ending signs of regional strife) for the potential signs of who could/would profit." We saw while the Iraq War was happening that Halliburton (and subidiaries) was profiteering. No one cared. We knew it. Didn't change a thing. Search Halliburton Watch on the web. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Mrrzy Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:12 PM Ok, not Arabs, then Moslems. I was trying to generalize but got out of whack. Who was killing whom over communism during the Cold War? Which China apparently won? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Rapparee Date: 04 Jan 12 - 01:36 PM I don't think Taiwan is a huge target for China right now. I think that they'll just buy them out one of these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: goatfell Date: 04 Jan 12 - 01:38 PM then said machines would never fly but... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Rapparee Date: 04 Jan 12 - 06:16 PM Don't forget that Russia exports a lot of crude. And with the Arctic Ocean warming it wouldn't be difficult to ship it from Siberia to Alaska to Canada to the US via a pipeline or by tanker. In fact, I've already read of such a proposal somewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Jan 12 - 06:49 PM They also said that pigs won't fly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST Date: 04 Jan 12 - 07:03 PM ""We saw while the Iraq War was happening that Halliburton (and subidiaries) was profiteering. No one cared. We knew it. Didn't change a thing"". That was a company, not a country. (And, Iraq was hardly a WW). Big companies often profit from conflict. Just look at the oil industry and the guys in the stock market.Profiting of this type would be a hard one to link to anything, except rich people and political corruption. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Jan 12 - 11:50 PM A pig will fly if you hurl it from a trebuchet or blow it up with several pounds of high grade explosive. It won't fly skillfully...it won't fly happily...and it won't fly for long...but it will fly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: kendall Date: 05 Jan 12 - 12:56 AM LH is right on. 9/11 was pulled off by a gang of mostly Saudis. They got fed up with the way we have been treating them for so many years.Bush needed a war to get a second term and he got one. I love America, but I sure don't like our foreign policy. A friend of mine thinks we have a right/duty to kick Iran's ass if they close the Strait of Hormuz. I don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,999 Date: 05 Jan 12 - 08:32 AM "LH is right on. 9/11 was pulled off by a gang of mostly Saudis." And within days while aircraft were still grounded, why were members of Usama bin Laden's family allowed to fly home from the US? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,999 Date: 05 Jan 12 - 10:53 AM The War to End All Wars Someone mentioned earlier on the thread that WW III would not happen, a triumph of hope over experience if WW II is anything to go by. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Jan 12 - 11:46 AM A pig will fly in an airplane if you want to ignore the entire meaning and context of the expressions about pigs and machines flying. Likewise, If you ignore or cherry pick current politics and economics and history to this point, WWIII might seem likely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 05 Jan 12 - 12:02 PM The question I see is Does one acknowledge that human beings are capable of another WW, and work to prevent it? OR Deny that human beings will act against their own interests and deny that it could happen, and thus help cause it to occur by that "gentle slope" that pushed us (the world) into WW I and WW II? I think that all agree it would be a bad idea- but does refusing to acknowledge the possibility help or hinder the prevention of it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: EBarnacle Date: 05 Jan 12 - 12:27 PM If we wait a little while, the war will be over potable water. LH, there are several incidents where the Israelites are ordered [by God, supposedly] to wipe out an entire tribe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Jan 12 - 12:48 PM Yes, that's right, Ebarnacle. It's a disturbing precedent, seems to me. I can't imagine why anyone would want to follow a "God" who would instruct His "chosen" people to commit genocide. Israelis are also engaging in ethnic cleansing as they expand their settlements into the West Bank, they are practicing what amounts to Apartheid, and they are seeking what the Nazis termed "lebensraum" (living room), and they are behaving as if they were the Master Race. And they are the undisputed masters of blitzkrieg warfare in the present era. And they have more undeclared/unadmitted-to nuclear bombs than anyone else in the world, and no one even troubles them over it! Quite an amazing set of circumstances, if you ask me. They either ARE God's Chosen (which I highly doubt!) or they are something else entirely. Note: I am NOT talking about Jews. I have no problem with Jews. I am talking about Israeli government policy...and Zionism. There are many Jews who actively oppose both Israeli government policy and Zionism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: akenaton Date: 05 Jan 12 - 02:05 PM There will be no WW3. There will be an amalgamation of the powerful....Russia China USA, will take whatever they wish in the way of natural resources....small weak nations will be absorbed...all the present pretence of "democracy" will be abandoned...minorities will be liquidated....might will rule. Dangerous elements like religion will be obliterated.....Muslim countries will be bombed into oblivion....other cults like Christianity will be banned on pain of death. Mr Orwell will have been proved correct, our children and grandchildren will be slaves to build the last great Empire And the joke is that we will have brought it all upon ourselves, our dream of equality will at last be realised....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Jan 12 - 03:07 PM People who follow a messianic plan of world domination such as you are describing, Akenaton....ARE following a religion! (It's a political religion which they invented and subscribe to). They will, of course, be intent on wiping out any competing religions while they consolidate power in theirs. Note what Pol Pot did in Cambodia...in the name of his version of Communism (which was a political religion of a very dour sort, a materialist religion utterly opposed to traditional religions of a spiritual sort). You can have Gods of any sort: spiritual, financial or political. You can have holy books of any sort: spiritual, financial or political. You can have a ruling priesthood of any sort: spiritual, financial or political. They all believe in their favorite chosen myths. They all practice some sort of special "magic" to impress their followers. They all engage in complex rituals and set up complex hierarchies of power. They all seek power and control over the minds of their subjects. They are all equally dangerous to anyone who wishes to be free. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: EBarnacle Date: 05 Jan 12 - 09:13 PM There is some hope. Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to meet. Bear in mind that, when Israel withdrew from the Sinai, all the infrastructure was handed over intact. When Israel left Gaza, all the infrastructure was left behind for the benefit of the Palestinians--and promptly destroyed. Maybe, jusy maybe, things will be different this time. As to the question of Apartheid, who would you rather be occuoied, the Israelis or the Palestinians? At least there is a high probability of living wsith the Israelis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Jan 12 - 12:25 AM Jews and Palestinians (and Christians) got along fine together in Palestine prior to the creation of the political state of Israel...a state which was born out of terrorist acts on the part of European Zionist emigrees to the region. I've seen videos of Jews who grew up in that region in the prewar era protesting what has happened since the creation of the political state of Israel...saying that they used to be good friends with their Muslim neighbours in Palestine and used to even babysit each other's children in the old days (prior to 1948). What has happened since 1948 has been an utter disaster for those 3 communities and has imperilled the entire region...and to a considerable extent, the rest of the world as well. I don't believe it has served either Jews, Christians or Muslims well. I think it was a huge mistake. However, we must live with it now, mustn't we? So solutions need to be found which bring about an improvement of relations between all parties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 06 Jan 12 - 06:52 AM "911 was not an act of war. Acts of war are committed by sovereign nations with armed forces, upon other sovereign nations." - Little Hawk From your personal perspective that may be your take on things, it is certainly not the view taken by those who thought up the attacks of 11th September 2001, planned them, or carried them out. They even went to the extent of formally declaring war firstly in 1996 and secondly in 1998. I do not know of any criminal organisation that forewarns their intended victim of the crime about to be committed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 06 Jan 12 - 06:59 AM "why were members of Usama bin Laden's family allowed to fly home from the US?" Possibly because they had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what had happened on the 11th September 2001, and getting them out of the country was the only way to guarantee that some "lynch-mob" didn't make a terrible situation a damned sight worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 06 Jan 12 - 07:11 AM "A friend of mine thinks we have a right/duty to kick Iran's ass if they close the Strait of Hormuz. I don't." - kendall Your friend's thinking aligns itself with what the UN Security Council's take on it (closure of the Straits of Hormuz) would be - Closure of an international water-way is considered to be an "Act of War". No need to worry though as the Iranians will not close the Straits of Hormuz for two very simple reasons: 1: They do not have the capability to carry out that threat for longer than 24hours. 2: The regime of 12 "Old Gits" + Ahmadinawhat knows full well it would lead ultimately to their destruction and not one single foreigners boot would have to set foot on Iranian soil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Jim Martin Date: 06 Jan 12 - 07:15 AM Obama's sending 1,500 Marines to Australia: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45318987/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-us-boost-asia-pacific-military-presence/#.TwblsnphuSo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Date: 06 Jan 12 - 09:22 AM If you take account of the Seven Years' War, the Hundred Years' War, the Naploeonic Wars and the Crusades I reckon we're already up to World War 6, at least. Unless anyone can think of any others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Musket Date: 06 Jan 12 - 09:30 AM I have a weakness for science fiction. I'm waiting for the first galactic war! Isn't it interesting that we assume that if there are other life forms out there, we assume they settle differences over territory in the same way we do. When two blokes I knew got into a fight over a woman and both ended up attending accident and emergency, the police said they weren't being civilised. Ironically, the young lady in question dumped them both and found two other blokes to fight over her. (Tell me about it...) She found out that they tossed a coin the pub one night. Most of her friends agreed that these two blokes weren't being civilised either. You can't win. You might as well pick up a club and go and twat someone. At least we seem to understand war... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 06 Jan 12 - 09:59 AM "Jews and Palestinians (and Christians) got along fine together in Palestine prior to the creation of the political state of Israel...a state which was born out of terrorist acts on the part of European Zionist emigrees to the region" False statement. Please look at the history of Mandate Palestine, and the reasons for the creation of the Arab Palestinian Homeland of TransJordan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Mrrzy Date: 06 Jan 12 - 12:49 PM Well, they got along better... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Jan 12 - 01:41 PM Bruce - I have seen video of a large number of orthodox Jews in New York City protesting against modern Zionism, against the policies of the modern state of Israel, and personally testifying to the far better relations their families had with their Muslim neighbours in Palestine before the state of Israel came into being. Their testimony is what I base my comments upon. I also personally know Canadian Jews who deeply disapprove of Zionist policy as carried out be the state of Israel. Since they ARE Jews, they are able to escape the usual witless accusations of anti-Semitism over their anti-Zionist views. Teribus - I think you're probably dead right about why members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the USA immediatly after 911. Possibly because they had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what had happened on the 11th September 2001, and getting them out of the country was the only way to guarantee that some "lynch-mob" didn't make a terrible situation a damned sight worse. It seems pretty plausible to me. As to whether 911 as an act of war...a criminal/political organization certainly issue what they term a "declaration of war" on anyone they want to...but that doesn't make it a war between nations. Mafia families, for example, have declared war on each other from time to time...and have fought bloody turf wars following that declaration. They have also declared war on police departments at times. There is a drug war occurring in Mexico right now between Mexican drug cartels and the Mexican government, but it's not a war between nations. It's an internal matter. Now, let's say that a privately run group of anti-Communists in the USA or Canada issued a manifesto declaring war on, say, the Soviet Bloc back before 1989. The Soviets wouldn't have liked that, but it would not have led to them invading the USA or Canada...because the USA or Canada would not have been the entity making the threat. If that privately-run group of anti-Communists had then blown up some buildings in Moscow...which they might manage to do if they were well organized and clever enough...what would the Russians have done? Would they have invaded the USA or Canada? No. They would have considered it a criminal act, and they would have turned to international legal means of dealing with it...not engaged in a war with another sovereign nation over it. I believe the correct response to 911 should have been to treat it as a criminal act, not an act of war, and to respond to it with international legal action, international police action, and diplomatic and financial action to bring members of Al Qaeda to justice. I think invading Afghanistan was an enormous and profitless error, and would not achieve the stated objectives of defeating Al Qaeda at all, but would in fact play directly into the hands of Al Qaeda and would do great and lasting damage to the USA and Afghanistan....and Osama Bin Laden would get what he reputedly wanted, the financial ruination of the USA through a series of small and lengthy wars in the Third World. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Donuel Date: 06 Jan 12 - 05:02 PM We got pot wars we got drug wars we got whatever you got we want wars we got class wars we got poor wars but we don't got world war 3. Lets hear it for, Con ventional war Plain ol Conventional war. Thats the war with no holds barred cept for all out nuclear horror. Both sides aren't satisfied that only thousands died but at least we got more arm sales for our tribe. we got race wars we got space wars we got whatever sect you are is nuts wars we got terror wars we got error wars but we ain't got world war 3. Lets hear it for, Con ventional war Plain ol Conventional war. Thats the war with no holds barred cept for all out nuclear horror. Both sides aren't satisfied that only thousands died but at least we got more arm sales for our tribe. we got land wars we got sea wars we got just shut up and trust us why wars we got whatever will be will be wars but its clear to all those who see we won't have a chance to sing about 3 ( written on the spur of the moment.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: gnu Date: 06 Jan 12 - 05:47 PM Good spur. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Ed T Date: 06 Jan 12 - 05:53 PM ""I think invading Afghanistan was an enormous and profitless error, and would not achieve the stated objectives of defeating Al Qaeda at all, but would in fact play directly into the hands of Al Qaeda and would do great and lasting damage to the USA and Afghanistan....and Osama Bin Laden would get what he reputedly wanted, the financial ruination of the USA through a series of small and lengthy wars in the Third World"". Right on And, China was the "financial, lady in waiting", willing to finance the lofty war effort (possibly doing so o many fronts), and "buying out" the USA economic advantage. Possibly, China learned this tactic from the USA itself, who was the financial (and arms) broker of many wars, like WW2 (when it financed the Allies earlier, at a profit, and entered later). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Donuel Date: 06 Jan 12 - 06:03 PM Ed we have held ourselves out as mercenaries for hire for many purposes... a bit less for profitless humanitarian help but we try. The difference between China and the USA when it comes to war... The US merely reads the Art of War. China understands it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Donuel Date: 06 Jan 12 - 07:58 PM to the tune of Tom Lerhers' National Brotherhood week We got pot wars We got drug wars We got whatever you got we want wars We got class wars We got poor wars but we don't got world war 3. Lets hear it for, Con ventional war Plain ol Conventional war. Thats the war with no holds barred cept for all out nuclear horror. Both sides aren't satisfied that only thousands died but at least we got more arm sales for our tribe. We got race wars We got space wars we got whatever sect you are is crazy wars we got terror wars We got error wars but we ain't got world war 3. Let's hear it for, Con ventional war Plain ol Conventional war. That's the war with no holds barred cept for all out nuclear horror. Both sides aren't satisfied that only thousands died but at least we got more arm sales for our tribe. We got land wars We got sea wars We got just shut up and trust us why wars We got whatever will be will be wars but its clear to all those who see we won't have a chance to sing about 3 We got culture wars We got sculpture wars We got all God's chillun got war wars We got Storage wars We got toy wars But we don't got world war 3 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: gnu Date: 07 Jan 12 - 07:42 PM Don... indeed they do. Stay home, work hard, earn a penny, save a penny. Pennies count. They got a shitload a pennies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: EBarnacle Date: 08 Jan 12 - 12:03 AM LH, most of the orthodox you see protesting belong to sects which refuse to recognize the State of Israel. Yhey believe that until the destruction of Israel the Messiah cannot arrive. In this respect, they are similar to many evangelistic sects which are awaiting Armegeddon. I am not saying this is logical, it's doctrine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: EBarnacle Date: 08 Jan 12 - 12:04 AM By the way, these are the same sects which in Israel, have gotten themselves exempted from military service. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 08 Jan 12 - 04:33 AM "Acts of war are committed by sovereign nations with armed forces, upon other sovereign nations" Neat little definition for describing events in history. Unfortunately it completely ignores what history all to often has shown us - nothing remains constant and war like all other fields of human endeavour changes and evolves. Taking the definition above I would doubt very much that there will ever be a Third World War of the classic conventional WW I or WW II type. The development of nuclear weapons put paid to all of that. The "Cold War" was indeed a "War". As far as the UK went 1968 was the only year in which a British serviceman did not lose his life on active service. The two main opposing blocks fought each other by proxy in numerous insurrections, attempted insurrections and bush-fire wars. If a Third World War is to be considered then it started in the 1970's - The 20th Century saw the defeat of the evils of Fascism and Communism (Please do not attempt to put the Peoples Republic of China forward as the example of a surviving Communist State it has not been that for many decades now). The 21st Century will see the defeat of fundamentalist Islam. Little Hawk - Your parallel example of an anti-communist group actually perpetrating attacks against the Soviet people ignored one link in the process. Having identified the groups and located the countries in which those groups had their "bases", the Soviets would have demanded that the perpetrators be handed over to face Soviet justice. There might have been some debate over that point but action would have been taken by the US or Canadian authorities to arrest and detain those responsible. The U.S.S.R. would have gone to the UN Security Council to ensure that action was taken and that would have been supported unanimously more likely than not. As to the Soviets treating the attacks as criminal acts and following legal procedures? Well recorded events and past track record shows exactly what form that would take - the despatch from the Soviet Union of assassination squads. After the attacks of 9/11 GWB did ask that the perpetrators or those who sent them be surrendered to face US Justice - that request was refused by those harbouring Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. GWB did go to the United Nations and US intended actions were sanctioned against the unrecognised regime in Afghanistan in order that Al-Qaeda could be rendered harmless. This was in marked contrast to actions taken by Bill Clinton in 1998 who did not go to the US Congress, who did not go to the UN when he lashed out rather ineffectually at Sudan and Afghanistan. Last and by no means least - There was NO US Invasion of Afghanistan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Jan 12 - 12:59 AM There was a large military campaign launched against Afghanistan by an alliance of western nations, a heavy bombing campaign, the introduction of western military forces together with Afghan proxies, and followed by an occupation of Afghanistan and an extended conflict there carried out by their western forces and their Afghan proxies (composed mostly of Afghanistan's 3 minority cultural groups who are fighting against Afghanistan's majority cultural group: the Pashtuns, formerly called "Pathans" during British Empire days.) I call that a war between sovereign nations, I call in an invasion, and it is a war that has not yet ended. It will inevitably go on for quite some time yet, as the Pashtuns will continue attempting to recoup their former dominant position in Afghanistan and to eject foreign forces. The nation of Afghanistan did not attack the USA on 911, they did not plan the 911 attacks, they were not responsible for the 911 attacks. They did respond to the Bush administration's demands to surrender Bin Laden and his people by asking for the USA to present the incriminating evidence, and they said that if such evidence was presented, then Bin Laden would be charged and tried in a normal Afghan fashion under the existing Sharia Law, a law which provides different penalties than western law, but is similarly setup up to prove or disprove a given charge. Sharia Law WAS their normal legal system at that time, but the USA has absolutely no respect for it and does not recognize it as legitimate. Well, suppose the USA had said to another country, "Okay, you say these people hiding in the USA were responsible for a terrorist attack on your country. Fine. Show us the evidence, and we'll charge these people and try them under USA law." Suppose that the other country then said, "We have no respect for USA law. It's not legitimate. It wouldn't be a fair trial. We do not accept your offer, and we will bomb and attack you if you don't hand those people over to us by such and such a date." The USA would say what Afghanistan basically said: "You don't respect our laws? Then go to hell. We will fight you if you do that." The Afghan response, from their point of view, was the same response most other countries would have given if put in the same position...unless they could be bribed or blackmailed into giving in and basically surrendering both their dignity and their sovereignty. I'm sure that would have worked in a good many cases. It didn't work with the Afghans. They were too proud. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Jan 12 - 01:39 AM Ebarnacle - Yes, I'm aware of the sect which you are referring to, and that they refuse to recognize the State of Israel. What I found really interesting in their testimony, though, quite aside from their religious beliefs, was that they said their community had gotten along far better with their Muslim neighbours in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel...and that the creation OF the state of Israel had been disastrous for Jewish-Muslim relations in Palestine and elsewhere, therefore had been what amounted to a disaster for both Jews AND Muslims. And I tend to agree with that. It would have been similarly disastrous if in 1948 a large piece of Brazil or India or Argentina or the Phillipines or France or Madagascar or Mexico or any other place in the world had been forcibly turned by terrorism, European emigration and war into an officially Jewish political state after WWII.....and you would see an interminable conflict still occuring between the local indigenous population and the European Jewish emigrees in any of those places if it had happened. It happened as a world emotional reaction to what Hitler did to the Jews. Just like the Afghan War happened as a world emotional reaction to the horror of the 911 attacks. Horror produces violent counter-reactions. In both cases, the emotional reaction to the horrible events was out of proportion and it led to illogical and irrational decisions, and disastrous political consequences with longterm effects that have been of benefit to practically no one...except the international arms manufacturers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 09 Jan 12 - 12:53 PM 1: "There was a large military campaign launched against Afghanistan by an alliance of western nations" No there wasn't. The only foreign "boots on the ground" amounted to less than 1,000 men and their presence was agreed with the leadership of the Northern Alliance. The military camapign launched against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda was in fact remarkably small in terms of foreign troops 2: "a heavy bombing campaign" No there wasn't. Air support supplied to the Northern Alliance forces was provided by the air group of at most two USN Strike Carriers backed up in the later stages by a couple of B-52's out of Diego Garcia. The air campaign did not have to be heavy to be effective, neither the Taliban or their Al-Qaeda guests had ever experienced being on the receiving end of an air attack and they had no defence against one, this lack of experience meant that their field dispositions made them extremely vulnerable. 3: "the introduction of western military forces together with Afghan proxies" The only foreign troops allowed to enter Afghanistan were the ones that the Northern Alliance agreed to. Please remember that within the leadership of the Northern Alliance were the members of Afghanistan's last internationally recognised Government. Only those foreign governments backing the Taliban ever recognised them - the UN most certainly did not. The vast number of those fighting the Taliban were Afghans from the ranks of the Northern Alliance Forces who the US decided to assist. 4: The occupation of Afghanistan (A country two-and-a-half times the area of France with a population of some 28 million occupied by less than 1,000 men?? - Get real) Talking about invasions the Soviets went in in December 1979 with 154,000 men of their 40th Army - Their first act was to murder the Afghan Government in office - That Little Hawk is an Invasion and occupation force (by the bye 6th June 1944 the Allies opened the Second front in Europe by invading the Normandy beaches with 110,000 men on the first day - you mean to tell me that Eisenhower only needed 1,000). 5: "Afghanistan's majority cultural group: the Pashtuns" Complete and utter arrant nonsense - Demographically Afghanistan is made up of four, NOT three, minority cultural groups. The Pashtu may be the largest of those minority groups but they do constitute any sort of majority - the three other groups (Hazaras, Tajiks and Uzbeks/Turkomen/etc) will always outnumber them. The Pashtu are also internally divided on tribal lines (over 60 tribes with over 134 family/clan groups) aligned to either the Durrani or Ghilzai. The former, the most numerous are those who used to support the old King, and they support an Afghan Pashtun called Hamid Karzai. The latter support the Taliban (The Durrani and Ghilzai tribes have been sworn enemies since 1747). 6: "The nation of Afghanistan did not attack the USA on 911, they did not plan the 911 attacks, they were not responsible for the 911 attacks." Who said they did - but it is undeniable that the Taliban in Afghanistan did shelter those who did organise and plan the attacks not only of 2001 but of those carried out in 1996, 1998 and 2000. In 1998 the Taliban Government told the USA point blank that no Al-Qaeda member would EVER be surrendered to face US justice. 7: "suppose the USA had said to another country, "Okay, you say these people hiding in the USA were responsible for a terrorist attack on your country. Fine. Show us the evidence, and we'll charge these people and try them under USA law" More arrant nonsense. What would the US legal system charge them with? What US laws would they have broken? What would have been requested would be extradition to face charges in the country where the crime was committed. 8: "They did respond to the Bush administration's demands to surrender Bin Laden and his people by asking for the USA to present the incriminating evidence, and they said that if such evidence was presented, then Bin Laden would be charged and tried in a normal Afghan fashion under the existing Sharia Law, a law which provides different penalties than western law, but is similarly setup up to prove or disprove a given charge." Yes Sharia Law does provide different penalties and irrespective of what evidence was provided and substantiated Bin Laden having warned the USA of his intention to attack US citizens whenever and wherever they may happen to be, and having offered the population of the USA the opportunity to convert to Islam to avoid any hostile action, would have been found "Not Guilty" in a Sharia Court of all charges. The small matter of the Taliban not forming the officially recognised Government of the country was another stumbling block. Today ask Mullah Mohammed Omar knowing what he knows now - would he hand over bin Laden - My guess is that bin Laden and his entire crew, lock, stock and barrel, would have been despatched to the good ol' US of A so fast their heads would be spinning. The operations conducted between October 7th 2001 and the summer of 2002 were offensive military operations targeting Al-Qaeda and their Taliban hosts. These operations were carried out under the umbrella of US-Operation Enduring Freedom which was agreed by the UN as a proportionate response to the attacks of 9/11. From December 2001 there were also operations relating to the reconstruction of Afghanistan as part of the United Nations Assistance Mission Afghanistan involving 43 countries contributing to ISAF whose troops were present and continue to be present inside Afghanistan at the express invtation of the duly elected and internationally recognised Government of the Islmic Republic of Afghanistan - NO INVASION - NO OCCUPATION. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Jan 12 - 04:25 PM I'm delighted that I am keeping your energetic mind busy, Teribus. I know you enjoy it. I'll reply to your replies at some point if I decide to, so hang on hopefully for your next opportunity to respond in triplicate, okay? ;-D (It would be easier to just refer you to some good reading on the subject...but given the fact that you would not agree with the authors, I suspect you wouldn't bother reading the books.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 10 Jan 12 - 01:23 PM These books I take are considered by you to be Gospels? Or are they only expressing the opinions of their Authors? i.e. Their take on the facts as they interpret them? No need to reply to the points I have raised, had you wished to refute them you would already have done so, but I do not believe that you can. 1: The military campaign waged by the Northern Alliance, backed up by Special Forces and latterly by US-OEF was rather short lived and minimal. Especially when compared to the Soviet invasion, which actually was an invasion. 2: Please provide an example of this "heavy bombing campaign" - any idea of how few aircraft were involved? Irrefutable fact - A heavy bombing campaign cannot get any heavier than the strategic bombing campaign against Nazi Germany which lasted over three years, involved thousands of Heavy Bombers, dropped over 1.5 million tons of bombs and managed to kill 600,000 Germans. 3: Foreign troops allowed into Afghanistan between October 7th 2001 and December 2001? Between 500 - 1,000 Specialist Advisors; two Companies of 40 Commando Royal Marines + RM SBS, towards the end 1,000 USMC to Fort Rhino and 1,000 men from 10th Mountain Division to the Mazar-e-Sharif. Not much of an invasion force when all said and done. primarily they all acted as mentors and provided back-up for the Northern Alliance forces. All of the above has been clearly detailed. I rather liked your term "Afghan proxies", proxies of whom? These so-called proxies of yours had been fighting the Taliban since 1994 and before that they had fought, and defeated, the Soviets. The "War" you speak of is in fact an attempted insurrection that is running out of steam fast as far as the Taliban are concerned. Attacks down an amazing 80%, fewer and fewer incidents reported, any signs of the much sought after "defeat" of the "Big, Bad, West" are not very promising at all - in fact that ship left port and disappeared over the horizon a long, long time ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Jan 12 - 03:04 PM Be patient. I'm having a fairly busy day here. I will have some interesting links for you to peruse presently, but it's going to have to wait for a little while. I hope the great Anglo-American-Imperial Axis doesn't decide to launch another needless Middle Eastern war in the meantime. Got my fingers crossed on that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 11 Jan 12 - 04:42 AM The Anglo-American-Imperial Axis? Afghanistan? Try the United Nations Security Council they after all set up both UNAMA and ISAF at the request of and with the complete agreement of the Afghan Government - So much for "Imperialism". April 1978 to October 2001 - Approximately 2.5 million Afghans lost their lives and the country was totally destroyed, none of which would have happened had the Communist PDPA exercised patience and constraint - that equates to an average of 292 people killed every day for 23.5 years. October 2001 to October 2011 - Approximately 37,000 Afghans have lost their lives, the majority of those killed have been killed directly or indirectly by the Taleban (Source UN), the country is now largely peaceful and is being rebuilt with a massive influx of foreign investment. Due to the presence of the ANSF, ISAF and US-OEF troops charged with the protection of the general population that previous average death toll of 292 Afghans per day has dropped to 10 - a reduction of 96.6%. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Songwronger Date: 31 Jan 12 - 07:16 PM This looks ominous: Three weeks after Tehran threatened action against any US aircraft carrier entering the Strait of Hormuz, Washington made two moves: US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta disclosed Sunday, Jan. 22, that the USS Enterprise Carrier Strike Group would steam through the strategic strait in March; a few hours later, the US Navy sent the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier through the strategic strait without incident, accompanied by British and French warships. http://www.debka.com/article/21671/ The Enterprise is scheduled to be decommissioned after this deployment. I saw a figure a while back regarding how much it would cost to scrap the ship, and it was staggering. Be cheaper to just sink it somewhere over there and claim the Iranians did it. Don't forget that Dick Cheney talked about disguising U.S. boats to launch "surprise attacks" on larger U.S. ships. The Debka website also reports that Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama is massing troops in the Strait of Hormuz: The article "Massive US Military Buildup on Two Strategic Islands: Socotra and Masirah" is an exclusive article and can be purchased. I'm not a paying member, but I saw mention elsewhere that Obama's putting 50,000 troops on each island. They'll be in place by March, just in time for the Enterprise to make its trip through the strait. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: Mrrzy Date: 01 Feb 12 - 12:55 PM Speaking of Tom Lehrer, that quote about If any songs are going to come out of WWIII we'd better start writing them now is his too. From the intro to So Long Mom, I'm Off To Drop The Bomb, so don't wait up for me... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST,999 Date: 01 Feb 12 - 01:58 PM "BAGHDAD, Oct. 31 (Xinhua) -- Iranian Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi said Monday a U.S. plan to increase military presence in the Middle East after the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq shows lack of "rationality and prudence." "The Americans are not following a rational and prudent approach. They always have a deficit, unfortunately, in rationality and prudence," Salehi said during a joint press conference here with his Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari. Salehi's comments came in response to reports that the Obama administration plans to bolster the U.S. military presence in the region after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year. As part of its plans to keep eyes on Iran, the Obama administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: World War 3 From: GUEST Date: 25 Apr 14 - 10:57 PM Headlines: UKRAINE WARNS OF 'WWIII'... Kiev Steps Up Offensive... Russian jets cross into airspace... REPORT: Putin halts all talks with White House... For those of you who've missed it, Ukraine voted not to join the European Union. The EU and NATO responded by financing a fascist uprising in Ukraine. Now NATO has put troops in Poland and elsewhere, on the Russian border. Russia's foreign minister Lavrov said that any aggression would be met with a military counter response. He said this in English, so it wouldn't be misunderstood. The fascists are now blowing things up, so things don't look good. Russian ships are reconnoitering off the coast of Florida. Nuclear cruise missiles targeting the U.S. This is how attention will be diverted from the bankers' looting of the western world, with thermonuclear war. |
